Cyclists being bad drivers to other Cyclist - Disgraceful

[Aushiker]

Yeh hi,
Don't get why your talking about guidelines, guide books,the book I'm quoting from is a RTA road rules book also the website link I posted its listed under laws and penalties.
I'm quite happy to run blocker for any cyclist out there. Done so many times as a support truck and elStado I toally agree.
Geoff

I am sorry but you are not quoting from the road rules, you are quoting from a RTA website page discussing the road rules; big difference. The road rules are as gazetted and are published in the link provided later on which is http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/fragv ... N?tocnav=y . Note the URL. The full copy of the Act can be found at http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/fullh ... le.247+0+N ? and all NSW legislation at http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/ which BTW states:

This is the official NSW Government website for online publication of legislation and is provided and maintained by the Parliamentary Counsel's Office.

The website contains:

Acts, regulations, planning instruments and other statutory instruments, as constantly consolidated and updated in the dynamic In Force database
Point-in-time historical and repealed versions from the In Force database
Notification: official online notification of the making of new statutory instruments
Acts as assented to since 1824 in the static, archival As Made database
Statutory instruments as originally made since 1990
Advanced searching and browsing features
Guides to legislation
Bills—introduced, explanatory notes and consultation drafts
Legislation on this website is generally authorised—see About

You might also find this WA Guideline on understanding legislation helpful.

Regards
Andrew

[rokwiz]

Hi, glad you cleared that up, but the word is still there Must in your link.
Never realised I got my HC licence by reading a guidlines book !
Geoff

[Aushiker]

Hi, glad you cleared that up, but the word is still there Must in your link.
Never realised I got my HC licence by reading a guidlines book !
Geoff

I don't think anyone is disputing that BUT you are taking one word out of context and basing your argument on it. There is a whole sentence there which has a critical qualification, well two actually. The first is:

(

1) The rider of a bicycle riding on a length of road with a bicycle lane designed for bicycles travelling in the same direction as the rider must ride in the bicycle lane unless it is impracticable to do so.

The first critical qualifier.

The second critical qualifier is that this refers to a bicycle lane. A bicycle lane will be defined in the in the Act and should state and how it should be signed. If it is like WA, road markings do not necessarily make it a bike lane, e.g., a shallow (shoulder) with painted cyclist symbols is not a bike lane. A bike lane has to have a start and end sign as defined in the Regulations.

Andrew

[citywomble]

Aushiker said

The second critical qualifier is that this refers to a bicycle lane. A bicycle lane will be defined in the in the Act and should state and how it should be signed. If it is like WA, road markings do not necessarily make it a bike lane, e.g., a shallow (shoulder) with painted cyclist symbols is not a bike lane. A bike lane has to have a start and end sign as defined in the Regulations.

Actually, having investigated this in more depth, I believe that a painted bike symbol may well make it a bike lane. Apart from the qualifier you have mentioned, the 'definitions' are essential reading.
What is very relevant is that the definition of a SIGN includes road markings. So a road marking is a lawful 'sign' and bike lanes indicated by the bike road marking should, therefore, be a legal bike lane.

[simonn]

Actually, having investigated this in more depth, I believe that a painted bike symbol may well make it a bike lane. Apart from the qualifier you have mentioned, the 'definitions' are essential reading.
What is very relevant is that the definition of a SIGN includes road markings. So a road marking is a lawful 'sign' and bike lanes indicated by the bike road marking should, therefore, be a legal bike lane.

I believe that your belief is wrong, in NSW at least.

http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/fragv ... N?tocnav=y

153 Bicycle lanes

...
(4) A bicycle lane is a marked lane, or the part of a marked lane:

(a) beginning at a bicycle lane sign applying to the lane, and

(b) ending at the nearest of the following:

(i) an end bicycle lane sign applying to the lane,

(ii) an intersection (unless the lane is at the unbroken side of the continuing road at a T-intersection or continued across the intersection by broken lines),

(iii) if the road ends at a dead end—the end of the road.

Note. Continuing road, intersection, marked lane and T-intersection are defined in the Dictionary.

I cannot copy the images as displayed in the above link, but this is a bicycle lane sign:



This is an end bicycle lane sign:



Seriously people, it is only reading. I have provided the link to the legislation. Speculation and belief are ridiculous when there is t'internet.

[Aushiker]

Actually, having investigated this in more depth, I believe that a painted bike symbol may well make it a bike lane. Apart from the qualifier you have mentioned, the 'definitions' are essential reading.
What is very relevant is that the definition of a SIGN includes road markings. So a road marking is a lawful 'sign' and bike lanes indicated by the bike road marking should, therefore, be a legal bike lane.

Yes I am aware of your thoughts on that aspect, however Regulation 3 states:

bicycle lane means a marked lane, or the part of a marked lane —
(a) beginning at a “bicycle lane” sign applying to the lane; and
(b) ending at the nearest of the following:
(i) an “end bicycle lane” sign applying to the lane;
(ii) an intersection (unless the lane is at the unbroken
side of the continuing road at a T-intersection or continued across the intersection by broken lines);
(iii) if the carriageway ends at a dead end — the end of the carriageway;

Note There are a number of other permitted versions of the “bicycle lane” sign, and another permitted version of the “end bicycle lane” sign.

The bicycle lane signs or symbols if you prefer as given in the Regulations contain the word "lane" with I assume the intention of clearly communicating the existence of lane. I would assume that bicycle lane road markings would have to do the same so that a user can clearly determine that is in fact a bicycle lane and not a shallow or shoulder. Interesting the only bicycle lanes I am aware of all signed as per the examples in the regulations.

I haven't yet found any information on the other "permitted versions" but would assume that they again would have to clearly communicate that a lane is in fact a bicycle lane as defined.

BTW maybe being pedantic but the bicycle lane definition specifically refers to a bicycle lane sign not a road sign .... that may be a critical distinction more so given the way the phrase "road sign" is used in the regulations.

Andrew

[find_bruce]

Actually, having investigated this in more depth, I believe that a painted bike symbol may well make it a bike lane. Apart from the qualifier you have mentioned, the 'definitions' are essential reading. What is very relevant is that the definition of a SIGN includes road markings. So a road marking is a lawful 'sign' and bike lanes indicated by the bike road marking should, therefore, be a legal bike lane.

Should make it very interesting on part of my route - the painted bike symbol is at seemingly random places on the road with no other lane markings- If your interpretation was correct, this road marking would make the entire road a bicycle lane. As you no doubt realise it is illegal for a car to drive on a bike lane - see NSW road rule 153(1)

Whilst this rule would be very convenient for me, I suspect that the local residents would not be impressed & if it ever got to court, it is most unlilkey the court would find the whole road had become a bike lane.

A for effort though, very creative

[rokwiz]

Hi,
Poor original poster Trekstar,this thread has been bogged down in the legal dept.
Theres' your answer why he did, It seems the road rules are only guidelines anyway, so perhaps that Pajero driver read it as he does''t really have to give cyclist a metre clearance.
Geoff